funny how democracey works for some and not others

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by gynn

How do you think the referendum question should be worded?

'Are you in favour of the UK leaving the European Union' perhaps?

What about 'Are you in favour of returning to the halcyon days where Britannia ruled the waves, there were blue birds over the white cliffs of Dover, Johnny Foreigner was kept firmly in his place and you could have a night out in Accrington, fish and chips on the way home and still have change from a ten bob note?'

Strikes me that either question is as valid because it ain't going to happen, and Graham Jones is merely playing the entirely correct role that an MP should play in protecting the great British public from wasting its time in voting on something that can't be delivered.

Are you taking a rise?

The questions should be as simple as possible so that everyone can understand what is being asked, and respond accordingly.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by ToffeeGuy

The precursors to the EU, EEC etc, and the Nato Alliance provided strength during the Cold War. So thanks for providing me with another reason for why the EU is a good thing. Resisting Communism during the Cold War.

Plus I think you'll find the Enigma machine had a big hand in winning the war, helped by our current EU colleagues the Poles. Hitler trying to take on Russia didn't help. But basically we wouldn't have won the war without the US. But that's another subject altogether.

Western strength in the cold war was sitting in missile silos in North Dakota, on US nuclear submarines, and in the bomb bays of SAC planes. And what has communism got to do with it? The Soviets stopped being communist when Stalin took over, maybe even before that ... State Capitalism would be a more accurate term for their political system. And looking back on those times it is difficult to judge who was the bigger threat to world peace: The USA or The USSR ... In those heady brinkmanship days of the early 60s each of them took us to the edge of anihilation ... many think that the yanks took us too close in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

And the Enigma thingy ... a lucky break indeed, the kind of thing one needs in a war, like Il Duce invading Greece without telling his boss ... and one can go on and on ... breaking the Enigma, particularly after the huns added a fourth wheel, did give us the computer (thus allowing us to argue over great distances) ... It was a great aid in the fighting of the Battle of the Atlantic; but lets not forget the thousands of brave merchant seamen and those who served on convoy escorts (many of which, by the way, belonged to the Royal Canadian Navy). It was primarily through the efforts of these men, and not the eggheads at Bletchley Park, that the U-Boats were defeated.

And I'm not aware that I said the war could have been won without men and materiel from the US. I did suggest, however, that without a victory in the Battle of Britain the war might have ended in favour of Germany, leaving a militarily weak US to deal with the mess, or come to terms.

You really do seem to be clutching at straws.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by gynn

How do you think the referendum question should be worded?

'Are you in favour of the UK leaving the European Union' perhaps?

What about 'Are you in favour of returning to the halcyon days where Britannia ruled the waves, there were blue birds over the white cliffs of Dover, Johnny Foreigner was kept firmly in his place and you could have a night out in Accrington, fish and chips on the way home and still have change from a ten bob note?'

Strikes me that either question is as valid because it ain't going to happen, and Graham Jones is merely playing the entirely correct role that an MP should play in protecting the great British public from wasting its time in voting on something that can't be delivered.

To me its very simple gynn, IN OR OUT simples, then nobody can cock up and miss read the results and put their own spin on it,

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

The thing is Ken(and you know I am a moderate) none of us will know if, what the powers that be, tell us, is the truth, because, to be blunt they haven't got a clue how much it would cost to come out of this corrupt organisation.
Would you hitch your wagon to an organisation that hasn't had a budget audited and signed off as being true, for the last 16 years....16 years?!

Do you want to be ruled by laws that are made in Brussels(and made by unelected officials - officials who have no accountability to us, the electorate of GB)?

The EU was sold to the British public as a trade agreement, there was nothing political implied by joining way back then.
It has turned into something else, and along the way governments of the time have said they would give the electorate a referendum and it still has not happened!

The other thing that is galling, is that some member states seem to follow the edicts from Brussles very loosely - and some not at all....but Britain is slavish in its adherence to the rules.

It was an ill advised, poorly thought out concept. One size fits all doesn't work.......I said it way back then and it is being proved in front of my eyes.
Anyone who spoke out against the EEC back then was deemed to be shortsighted and xenophobic.........and lower class(because it was deemed that the lower classes couldn't understand how good this organisation would be for Britain). It was almost a kind of fascism.
I didn't want to be part of Europe then, and I don't want to be part of in now....and, if I were younger I would flee this country at the very first opportunity.
There......I've said my piece......now I'll go and have a cup of tea.( a panacea for all things).

As always Marg, a perfectly level-headed reply that it's hard to pick fault with. However, we do loop back to my original point that even a straight In/Out vote would currently be based for a lot of people on what they think they know from the media and it's generally not a pretty picture.

I await the precise wording (or even the intended wording from the SNP's point of view) on the Scotland farrago. I'm not against that either but I suspect the WHOLE truth won't be told by either side and that's where it will fall down.

If referendums had a non-biased factsheet presenting everything that people really needed to know then I would be over the moon but as it stands we have to rely on the most charismatically-persuasive argument instead.

Dodgy ground and unlikely to change, I fear.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by jaysay

To me its very simple gynn, IN OR OUT simples, then nobody can cock up and miss read the results and put their own spin on it,

Dead right on this one. The question should be short and simple. After all, as Dorothy Parker observed: "Brevity is the soul of lingerie"

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

As always Marg, a perfectly level-headed reply that it's hard to pick fault with. However, we do loop back to my original point that even a straight In/Out vote would currently be based for a lot of people on what they think they know from the media and it's generally not a pretty picture.

I await the precise wording (or even the intended wording from the SNP's point of view) on the Scotland farrago. I'm not against that either but I suspect the WHOLE truth won't be told by either side and that's where it will fall down.

If referendums had a non-biased factsheet presenting everything that people really needed to know then I would be over the moon but as it stands we have to rely on the most charismatically-persuasive argument instead.

Dodgy ground and unlikely to change, I fear.

It ain't rocket science Kenneth, at the moment we can't go for a pee unless we consult Brussels, there's really no point in having general elections, as everything we do, we have to ask the EU if its okay and in keeping with what THEY want, we may as well run the white flag up over Westminster, we've been taken over without even a sign of Jackboots down Whitehall

[garinda]

Originally Posted by gynn

How do you think the referendum question should be worded?

The last time we had a referendum about Europe, in 1975, in which you voted, if I recall correctly, the actual wording was...

"Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?"

Cut to nearly forty years later, when dreams of a purely trade alliance are but a distant dream.

The next referendum question should be...

''Do you think the UK should stay in the European Union?''

Yes - [ ]

No - [ ]


It's really very simple.

[Margaret Pilkington]

I have to say that because I am a dyed in the wool cynic, I am very suspicious of the charismatically persuasive argument.
Too many times in the past politicians have told us what they think we want to know....which is a good country mile away from what we really want to know.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

....a straight In/Out vote would currently be based for a lot of people on what they think they know from the media and it's generally not a pretty picture.

The British public base who they vote for along similar lines, so on this occasion you're right, for once.

Though again, the results ain't pretty.

Sadly, for some, the days when politicans were held in high esteem are long gone.

The general public are quite capable of assessing a situation, and deciding what they want their future to be.

They aren't idiots.

Well no more so, than the people they elect.

Again, all irrelevant.

It's been decided, we aren't to have the democratic right to say whether we want to be a member of a body, that is totally different from the organisation we voted to join.

The Labour party are actively seeking we be given a referedum about the proposed changes to the House of Lords.

So the argument that the public aren't capable of giving their opinion via a referendum, really doesn't wash.

The vast majority of people want their say about E.U. membership in a referendum.

It will happen.

When mainstream parties see their support vanishing.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I have to say that because I am a dyed in the wool cynic, I am very suspicious of the charismatically persuasive argument.
Too many times in the past politicians have told us what they think we want to know....which is a good country mile away from what we really want to know.

Yes, they argued, and fought tooth and nail, that their expenses need to remain secret, for 'security reasons'.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Yes G....I'm still not 'over' that...and the EU and any mention of it makes my blood boil.
I really do despair of the future for this country....and for those who have still to grow up and make lives for themselves.

[susie123]

Why don't we have a referendum about whether to have a referendum?

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Yes G....I'm still not 'over' that...and the EU and any mention of it makes my blood boil.
I really do despair of the future for this country....and for those who have still to grow up and make lives for themselves.

Saddens me to say so, but I really wouldn't want to live here this time next century, the way things are going.

Things need addressing now, if the next generation are going to benefit from the freedoms we've enjoyed.

Freedoms which were hard won.

Earned with the blood, sweat, and tears of our forefathers.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Oh Sue...please....don't let's go there!
You might well hide behind that wall

[garinda]

Originally Posted by susie123

Why don't we have a referendum about whether to have a referendum?

You could have voted in our poll, but sadly it's closed.

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f...oll-31815.html